First, Find The Donut

Ruling: "The court of appeals lacked any authority under Rule 29.3 to afford relief to nonparties throughout the state."

— Chuck Lindell (@chucklindell) May 13, 2022

Not really the interesting question (though I don't know what Rule 29.3 says. Unless the interpretation here is egregious, I think the Court may be right that the 3rd Circuit overstepped its authority.)*  But this is the interesting outcome:

Though it overturned the injunction on procedural grounds, the high court raised questions about why the Department of Family and Protective Services opened these investigations in the first place. The court affirmed in Friday’s ruling that neither Attorney General Ken Paxton nor Gov. Greg Abbott had any grounds to direct the agency’s actions.

That needs a bit of background:

In February, Paxton issued a nonbinding legal opinion that equated certain medical treatments and procedures for transgender teens with child abuse. Abbott, citing that opinion, then sent a letter to DFPS directing the agency to investigate parents who provided gender-affirming care to their transgender children.

In a statement responding to the order, DFPS said it would “follow Texas law” as laid out in Paxton’s opinion, “[i]n accordance with Governor Abbott’s directive.” The agency proceeded to open at least nine investigations into parents of transgender children.

“The Governor and the Attorney General were certainly well within their rights to state their legal and policy views on this topic, but DFPS was not compelled by law to follow them,” Friday’s ruling reads. “DFPS’s press statement, however, suggests that DFPS may have considered itself bound by either the Governor’s letter, the Attorney General’s Opinion, or both. Again, nothing before this Court supports the notion that DFPS is so bound.” 

Texas government is built on the independence of state agencies and offices.  The AG is elected and doesn't answer to the Governor, who doesn't direct agencies like DFPS which are established by the Lege. Congress puts such agencies under the aegis of the President; but Texas law does not follow a similar pattern for Texas state agencies.  Paxton got shot down earlier by the Court of Criminal Appeals when he tried to enforce criminal elections laws.  The high court ruled that violated the state constitution, which doesn't give the AG criminal enforcement powers, but reserves that to the counties (through the DA and the county attorney).  Now the Supreme Court is telling agencies they shouldn't listen to Abbott and Paxton, either (especially since Paxton's opinion, like an AG opinion in Texas, is not binding on anyone, but advisory only).**

What the practical effect of that will be, is the interesting question.  Who does DFPS kowtow to now?  Abbott?  Paxton?  Or the Texas Supreme Court?  It's a very open question:

In this case, the ruling said, DFPS was responsible for deciding whether these investigations aligned with current state regulations — and will now have to decide whether to continue these investigations and allow new ones to be opened.

DFPS employees have told The Texas Tribune that agency leadership has acknowledged that these investigations do not meet the current requirements for child abuse and have said policy would need to be generated to match the governor’s directives.

Basically, it's up to DFPS to take back their authority.

As I said, I don't know the wording of Rule 23.9, but remember what I said about definitions being of supreme importance?

In this case, the justices ruled, the “parties” are the family that sued the state initially — not all parents of all transgender children. 

*And yes, Lindell is a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman, not a lawyer.  In my brief direct experience with reporters and the law, they never know what's going on and never report the story correctly.  I'm relying on the Tribune here, which has proven time and again to be much more intelligent about these matters, and more reliable. Lindell has several more tweets on this story, and he doesn't really know what he's talking about. He doesn't even mention any other part of the ruling.  Which leads him to miss the most important ruling of the court regarding Paxton, Abott, and DFPS.

**I should add that DFPS was not being sued here for complying with the Governor's directive.  But if someone does, or if that issue comes up in the trial court in a way that helps the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court is signaling that DFPS can't say "Abbott made us do it!"  In fact, the courts can now examine whether DFPS is following sound policy, or not:  because it's solely up to DFPS to defend their position.